Allahabad Court February 1923 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sahu Raghunath Singh and ors. Vs. Seth SrinaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All424; 73Ind.Cas.1018
1. These appeals arise out of four suits based on four hundis executed in November 1914 by Harnam Singh deceased. The defendants-appellants are nephews of Harnam Singh and formed a joint family with him. It has been found by both the Courts below that the debts were incurred in connection with the marriage of one of the appellants, Sahu Raghunath Singh, and that the amount borrowed for the purpose of the marriage was not excessive in view of the status of the family. On this finding it necessarily follows, and it has been held by the Court below that the debts were incurred for legal necessity.2. Two pleas have been urged in appeal. The first is that, inasmuch as a hundi is a negotiable instrument within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it could not be enforced against the appellants whether it was incurred on behalf of the joint family or not. This point, as the learned Advocate for the appellants, admits, has been definitely decided against him in the recent case of Kri...
Musammat Parsandi Vs. Mahabir Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All410
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are shortly as follows. One Musammat Badamo was the original owner of this property. She made a gift of it to her daughter's son Roshan Lal who was, at that time, a minor. Her property was being managed by her son-in-law Fakir Chand, who continued to do the same for his minor son Koshaji Lal, the donee. Roshan Lal died in 1900 and was succeeded by his widow Musammat Parsandi, the present plaintiff. On the 22nd of June, 1911, Musammat Parsandi made a, gift of the said share to her daughter Musammat Ratan Mali. It seems that there was some litigation about this shop between Musammat Ratan Mati aforesaid and some other persons who claimed the property as the heirs of Fakir Chand mentioned above. This led to a suit which was brought in the year 1914 by Musammat Ratan Mati for a declaration of her title against the present defendant Mahabir Prasad, and the other persons who laid claim to the estate...
Makkhan Vs. Mir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All404
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal and the connected second appeals Nos. 1408 and 1643 of 1921 arise out of a unit brought under the following circumstances. The defendant made an application to the criminal court under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of certain plots of land and the sugarcane crop which existed on that land. Both parties claimed the sugarcane crop and claimed to be in possession. The criminal court caused the sugarcane crop to be sold by auction and the amount realized by the sale, was Rs. 1,450-8. After the case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was decided, the present plaintiff applied to the criminal court for payment to him of the j aforesaid amount which had been placed in deposit with one Banaras Das. The criminal court referred the plaintiff to the civil court to have his title to the money determined. Thereupon the present suit was brought for a declaration-that the| aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,450...
Pitam Lal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All433; 71Ind.Cas.996
Rafique, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly recommending the quashing of the conviction and sentence passed upon Pitam Lal and Chokhe Lal. The latter were convicted under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, of an assault on a Sub-Inspector and fined Rs. 50. It appears that the Sub-Inspector wanted to search the house of one Dori where the two persons nained above also lived. They objected and raised their lathis at the Sub-Inspector to prevent him from entering the house The Sub-Inspector drew out his revolver upon which Pitam Lal and Chokhe Lal stood back and did not; oppose the Sub-Inspector.2. The Sub-Inspector admittedly had no right to enter or attempt to search the house of Dori, as Dori's house was not within his Circle. No offence in law was committed by Pita in Lal and Chokhe Lal, as pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge. I, therefore, accept his recommendation and set aside the conviction and sentence of Pitam Lal and Chokhe Lal. In case the fi...
Lala Makhan Lal Vs. Natthi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.640
1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in a mortgage suit, disputing the decree of the Court below by which it awarded to the respondent, Ganga, a sum of Rs. 1,330, as payable to him in respect of certain prior mortgages alleged to have been discharged by him. The mortgage in favour of the plaintiff was executed by one Bhure on the 6th of March 1908. In 1896 a mortgage was made by Bhure's father in favour of the defendant, Ganga, for Rs. 125. In 4907 two usufructuary mortgages were executed by Bhure in favour of Jot Ram and Dan Sahai, one for Rs. 100 and the other for Rs,. 280. After this the mortgage in favour of the plaintiff was executed. In 1909 Bhure executed another mortgagee in favour, of Jot Ram and Ban Sana: for Rs. 450. This mortgage included the) amount of the mortgage for Rs. 280 executed in 1907 mentioned above. A further sum was taken by the mortgagor, but out of the additional amount borrowed Rs. 42 was left in the hands of Jot Ram and Dan Sahai, mortgagees, ...
The Collector of Bulandshahr Vs. Ram Sarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All420; 73Ind.Cas.217
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of an execution proceeding and the question for consideration is whether an application made by the representatives of the deceased decree-holder for the substitution of their names was barred by time. The decree-holder died during the pendency of the execution proceeding on the 21st October 1918. As his legal representatives did not appear to proceed with the execution, the Court struck off the execution proceeding on the 14th December 1918. Courts by Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The case set forth in the plaint is that the defendants entered into a contract with the plaintiff's predecessor to pay him a sum of Rs. 210 for the right to collect weightment dues; that they only paid a portion of the amount due from them, and that a sum of Rs. 61-7-0 including interest is still due. It is suggested on behalf of the appellant that the case comes under Clause 13 of the Schedule, being a suit to enforce payment of allowances called...
Yad Ram Vs. Sundar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All425
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this application for revision, on the ground that a revision does not lie under the provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The circumstances out of which the case arose are these. There was a decree for sale against one Yad Ram, and in execution of that decree the mortgaged property was sold by auction. Subsequently to the auction sale, Yad Ram sold his interests in the property already sold by auction, and after this sale he presented an application to the court under Order XXI, Rule 89, of the Code of Civil Procedure, depositing the amount of the decree and the 5 per cent. penalty mentioned in the section, and prayed that the sale might be set aside. The court of first instance set aside the sale. An appeal was preferred from the judgment of that court to the lower appellate court under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (j). The appellate court set aside the order of the court of first i...
Jharap Rai Vs. Jaint Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All418; 71Ind.Cas.1033
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit originally brought for possession of 1 bigha and 2 biswas of sir land. The First Court decreed it to the extent of n biswas 17 dhurs. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed it. The findings of the Court below are these: The parties are joint owners of an unpartitioned village. They are in separate possession of sir plots. They cultivated, two adjoining plots, Nos. 1209 and 1210, the latter being in the possession of the plaintiff. This was in 1901 (Fasli 1308). At the time of the suit the defendant was in possession of 10 biswas in No. 1210 which has been formed into a separate subplot. There is no proof whatever as to when this change took place, the allegation in the plaint being that the plaintiff was originally in proprietary possession of this area, and that the defendant had dispossessed him by encroaching on the plaintiff's land to the extent of the area claimed. The learned District Judge held that the case was governed by Article...
Yad Ram Vs. Sunder Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All392; 74Ind.Cas.778
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this application for revision, on the ground that a revision does not lie under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The circumstances out of which the case arose are these. There was a decree for sale against one Yad Ram, and in execution of that decree the mortgage property was sold by auction. Subsequently to the auction sale, Yad Ram sold his interests in the property already sold by auction, and after this sale he presented an application to the Court under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Cose of Civil Procedure, depositing the amount of the decree and the 5 per cent, penalty mentioned in the section and prayed that the sale might be set aside. The Court of first instance set aside the sale. An appeal was preferred from the judgment of that Court to the lower Appellate Court under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (j). The Appellate Court set aside the order of the Court of first instance, being of opinion th...
Umrao Beg Vs. Mukhtar Beg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All401
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an execution first appeal arising out of an unfortunate litigation which has already occupied our attention in connection with regular first appeal No. 89 of 1920. The point which we are now called upon to decide is, however, distinct from any of the questions raised in the connected appeal above referred to. The suit was one for partition. There were fifteen plaintiffs in the case, and, in the preliminary decree as drawn up, these plaintiffs were awarded their costs against the defendant. There was an appeal lo this Court and also petition of cross-objections on the part of the plaintiffs, with the result that the preliminary decree passed by the trial court was modified in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant was made liable to a further sum on account of costs. The application with which we have to deal is an application by fourteen of the plaintiffs. Nos. 2-15, asking that the entire decree for costs may be executed, subject to such orders as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »